The Goodberry (non-)Issue

[Rhocian Xothara]

Knowing this community, this has probably been discussed to death many times before, but I didn't want to a) go hunting for a dead/archived thread and b) perform necromancy on it. Flogging a dead horse is much more my style. :P

So it has become a semi-popular thing for DMs to nerf Goodberry so that the spell consumes its material component, requiring you to go out and find or buy sprigs of mistletoe (which might be hard if you're in a setting where it doesn't naturally grow).

There's a couple of excuses given for this:

DMs don't like their players making the 'rations' element of survival a non-issue.
That Druid/Life Cleric combo gives a silly amount of healing, especially compared to other healing spells.
Zee Bashew did a video on it and now everyone thinks it's an awesome idea



Each to their own, and as long as DMs specify from the outset (i.e. at Session Zero) that this is one of their houserules, there's no problem. But as a DM and as a player, I personally think it's a garbage houserule.

Hear me out:
First of all, the two classes who can cast Goodberry are Druids and Rangers - the two classes who excel at survival, and one of those classes is commonly reviled for being only useful in "situational circumstances"... This is one of those situations!

Secondly, an often confused point: Goodberry only provides nutrition. As in food (like hard biscuits). Sage Advice clarified it does NOT include water (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/653619890058739712?lang=en). So you still have that matter to address.

Thirdly: Yes, there's a specific build you can make that can cheese Healing spells - Goodberry in particular. It's an excellent build for little more reason than the fact that it comes online at low levels. (CL3, I believe?) Congratulations, your player has designed their character to excel in one aspect of the game. If they want to do that, then it tells you one thing about your players: They don't want to play some grimdark survival horror where every encounter could mean their death. Why is it such a bad thing that your players will do whatever they can to stay alive? And how is this worse than, say, the Skill Monkey with Expertise in almost a dozen skills? Or the Sorcadin who pulls a Rorschach "You're locked in here with me!" on the BBEG with two attacks, a quickened spell and two Smites for good measure each turn?

It says a lot that WotC have since errata'd the 'Healing Spirit' issue out of RAW, but left Goodberry alone as-is despite being very aware of the multiclass exploit.

I've also heard precious few "players ruined my campaign with this spell!" horror stories. So I want to know: Do you nerf Goodberry in your games, and if so... why?

[KorvinStarmast]

Do you nerf Goodberry in your games, and if so... why?No, because I think that's a jerk DM-move.

[Amnestic]

So I want to know: Do you nerf Goodberry in your games, and if so... why?

Yes, though not due to anything you've noted in your post.

I dislike the ability to use a bunch of unused spellslots for the next day as a large amount of healing, especially when it's a first level spell. While it may be the designer's intention to let you do this, I dislike it, so I make the berries lose their potency either after 24 hours (as standard) or when the spell is cast again by the same person, meaning the maximum amount of berries you can bank is one slot's worth.

Added benefit means that the characters will only ever want to 'hold' one spellslot max, meaning they don't have to weigh up spell now vs. tomorrow's healing.

[KorvinStarmast]

I dislike the ability to use a bunch of unused spellslots for the next day as a large amount of healing, especially when it's a first level spell. While it may be the designer's intention to let you do this, I dislike it, so I make the berries lose their potency either after 24 hours (as standard) or when the spell is cast again by the same person, meaning the maximum amount of berries you can bank is one slot's worth.

Added benefit means that the characters will only ever want to 'hold' one spellslot max, meaning they don't have to weigh up spell now vs. tomorrow's healing. That's an interesting take; my players rarely have spell slots left over after an adventuring day. I've never run into someone casting multiple goodberries. When my life cleric (With Magic Initiatie) had the spell, she only cast it at the end of the day; and she had a pocket full of lunch and HP for the next day. My DM and I worked this into an SOP item.

Interestingly, she often found herself with a berry or two left over and used them at times to feed the horse or the pack mule ...

[MrStabby]

Goodberry exploits are only an issue if it stops other players at the table having fun.

Issues that might arise:

1) Another character has been built to be able to do some healing. They no longer get to contribute in the way their character was planned to
2) Another character has invested in survival capabilities through other means and this investment is now rendered worthless
3) The DM is wanting to run a campaign where attrition and resource managment is a big part of the game andadapting their vision to goodberry just makes their campaign worse
4) Players who want to play in a more attrition based campaign but cant do so as goodberry changes the campaign/prevents that plan from being realised.

There may be others, but generally check with the group and see what the group wants and depending on their answers make your rulings on goodberry. There is nothing inhearently wrong with rulling either way but is about finding the right rooling for a particular group/campaign.

[Luccan]

I actually think Zee's houserule works, so long as Survival is supposed to be a focus of your game and you discuss with your group. It does absolutely trivialize finding food in environments where that's intended to be a challenge. Rangers already find more food in their favored terrain and there's a background feature that lets you find food and water so long as it can be found.

If I were to make any changes along witb the material component being consumed, maybe let Goodberry cover a greater stretch of time. You only have so much mistletoe, but once you cast the spell and consume the berries, you're set for... let's say a week instead of a day. However long it takes before the penalties of not eating set in. So you buy yourself time in desperate situations or make it so you don't need to forage for a while letting you focus on other tasks. I still think Goodberry works fine with the original houserule, it's a weightless ration that can also provide emergency healing. In a survival game that's still really handy.

[Amnestic]

I've never run into someone casting multiple goodberries.

If it's never I wonder if it's just not occurred to them. Blowing a bunch of spellslots on the last day of downtime so you're stocked up for a bunch of healing on your first day of an adventure makes sense, and there's gotta be days where you're not exhausting all your slots for something.

Yeah there's the argument made that they won't have them if they get ambushed at night or whatever, but you'll usually have a solid idea if that's likely and can plan accordingly.

If you're doing daily exhaustive encounters I can see it being less of an issue but that'll depend a lot on your campaign.

Either way it's a small 'fix' for me.

[Zhorn]

Do you nerf Goodberry in your games, and if so... why?
Nah, I let it be as the books says it is.
Like KorvinStarmast, I see nerfing spells as a bad play move by the DM. Trying to fix an underpowered or trap spell I see the reason for, but nerfing just sounds like someone threw a hissy about the players having an answer to a problem the DM wants to force into being a bigger deal... Yeah, not interested.

But more specific to Goodberry, I've never seen it as a problem. Granted I run long adventuring days. Resource management is a thing I like my players to be mindful of. Carrying enough food and water, having the ability to scavenge effectively, or casting spells to solve the problem are all viable choices. Each one is just a trade-off against the others.

Magical food can seem like a cheap solution, but to me it is still consuming a spell slot, and if the party has plenty of those to spare at the end of the day, that's just a sign to you as a DM that you are not providing enough encounters.
Be it low level slots or high level slots, and regardless of WHAT they are spending those slot of, be it Goodberry or some other spell, left over spell slots is encounter potential not utilized.
Let them use Goodberry to solve their hunger problems, but make that choice a meaningful one. Take it from being a no-brainer answer to being an actual choice being made. "Is this first level slot best used on providing food... or do I want this slot for an emergency heal, or to cast Jump to cross the river/gorge/cliff?"

But that's my answer for almost all 'problem spell/rule/feature' interactions, just run full adventuring days and don't skip over rules or handwave them away and things tend to just work themselves out.
Goodberry is a good answer, and players should be able to reliably use it. It's only an issue if those slots were being unspent in the first place.

[Rhocian Xothara]

Ahhh... I love this forum. So many great answers!


Yes, though not due to anything you've noted in your post.

I dislike the ability to use a bunch of unused spellslots for the next day as a large amount of healing, especially when it's a first level spell. While it may be the designer's intention to let you do this, I dislike it, so I make the berries lose their potency either after 24 hours (as standard) or when the spell is cast again by the same person, meaning the maximum amount of berries you can bank is one slot's worth.

Added benefit means that the characters will only ever want to 'hold' one spellslot max, meaning they don't have to weigh up spell now vs. tomorrow's healing.

That's... wow. Yeah, I never once considered people stockpiling Goodberries like that. Partly because Long Rests in games I've been in tend to either happen in roleplay-driven environments (like exploring a town and going several days without combat), or when the party is thoroughly knackered and they want/need their resources back.

If this ever became a problem in my game, I'd agree that casting new instances of Goodberry causes the older Goodberries to lose their potency. But to be honest: Never happened in all my time playing D&D, which is probably why it never occurred to me to be a possibility! ^^;



Goodberry exploits are only an issue if it stops other players at the table having fun.

Issues that might arise:

1) Another character has been built to be able to do some healing. They no longer get to contribute in the way their character was planned to
2) Another character has invested in survival capabilities through other means and this investment is now rendered worthless
3) The DM is wanting to run a campaign where attrition and resource managment is a big part of the game andadapting their vision to goodberry just makes their campaign worse
4) Players who want to play in a more attrition based campaign but cant do so as goodberry changes the campaign/prevents that plan from being realised.

There may be others, but generally check with the group and see what the group wants and depending on their answers make your rulings on goodberry. There is nothing inhearently wrong with rulling either way but is about finding the right rooling for a particular group/campaign.

Agreed. I'm a fan and advocate of Coffeelock builds, and in a guide I recently wrote I specified that there are times when those builds are a bad idea. Those are typically when it outshines other characters. They work best in small adventuring parties (e.g. 3 players) when 'party roles' are not easily filled. In fact for a ToA game I'm starting soon, I'm in a party that is going to comprise of a Barbarian and a Bard. I'm tempted to go 'Coffeelock'; I might instead go Ranger or Druid (since, y'know, we're in Chult and all...). None of these options will impinge on the party members because it doesn't affect their roles, but if we were a party of 4-6 people that might be a different story.


I actually think Zee's houserule works, so long as Survival is supposed to be a focus of your game and you discuss with your group. It does absolutely trivialize finding food in environments where that's intended to be a challenge. Rangers already find more food in their favored terrain and there's a background feature that lets you find food and water so long as it can be found.

If I were to make any changes along witb the material component being consumed, maybe let Goodberry cover a greater stretch of time. You only have so much mistletoe, but once you cast the spell and consume the berries, you're set for... let's say a week instead of a day. However long it takes before the penalties of not eating set in. So you buy yourself time in desperate situations or make it so you don't need to forage for a while letting you focus on other tasks. I still think Goodberry works fine with the original houserule, it's a weightless ration that can also provide emergency healing. In a survival game that's still really handy.

I kinda like that - balance a nerf out with a buff. I'd be happy with that as a player, and I might even employ that as a DM too.

[stoutstien]

I general leave it alone but have modified or removed it for specific campaigns. Never had to single it out.

I also don't buff it so you can't shove it down the throat of an incapacitated target.

[Willie the Duck]

Since this is self-declared dead horse flogging, I'll do some self-declared devil's advocating.



Hear me out:
First of all, the two classes who can cast Goodberry are Druids and Rangers - the two classes who excel at survival, and one of those classes is commonly reviled for being only useful in "situational circumstances"... This is one of those situations!

Okay, I think the primary issue with this is that this is one of the most iconic examples of why people don't like how druids and more importantly rangers interact with the survival rules -- they don't interact meaningfully with the environment so much as remove it as a concern. Presumably you pick a druid or ranger to play because you like the wilderness and survivalism aspects of the game, yet what instead happens is that for a few low level spells and a ranger 1st level ability you no longer have to think about feeding yourself or having suboptimal travel time, etc., thus making that portion of the game less interesting.


Secondly, an often confused point: Goodberry only provides nutrition. As in food (like hard biscuits). Sage Advice clarified it does NOT include water (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/653619890058739712?lang=en). So you still have that matter to address.
This is true, and in those cases where water is hard to find, a major issue. Exactly how often water is scarce is going to be really campaign dependent. I'm not sure how much this changes anything, though. You can't just exist on water, so giving Goodberry an expendable component still limits how long one can go without some kind of recharge. I suppose you could flip the expendable component over to Create Water if you for some reason wanted finite survival, but not for the HP recovery aspect of Goodberry.


Thirdly: Yes, there's a specific build you can make that can cheese Healing spells - Goodberry in particular. It's an excellent build for little more reason than the fact that it comes online at low levels. (CL3, I believe?) Congratulations, your player has designed their character to excel in one aspect of the game. If they want to do that, then it tells you one thing about your players: They don't want to play some grimdark survival horror where every encounter could mean their death. Why is it such a bad thing that your players will do whatever they can to stay alive? And how is this worse than, say, the Skill Monkey with Expertise in almost a dozen skills? Or the Sorcadin who pulls a Rorschach "You're locked in here with me!" on the BBEG with two attacks, a quickened spell and two Smites for good measure each turn?

I'm not sure what the neutral term for things like life cleric/goodberry of Sorcadin or such is --'exploit' certainly sounds derogatory, but 'unusually synergistic confluence of rules' is cumbersome. Is 'gimmick' neutral enough for people? Anyways, 'this other gimmick exists, why not critique that?' isn't a good justification of this other gimmick, not least of which because there are plenty of people not in love with those gimmicks as well.

Characters, and the players that play them, absolutely should want to do what they can to survive (and flourish). They should do so within some set agreement amongst the people playing about what is 'in bounds' (the table rules, be they specifically written out or just well understood between members). The thing is, there's no obvious line where something is clearly in bounds on one side and unacceptable on the other. I think most people agree that 3E's Pun-Pun isn't something to be allowed at the table, so much as a thought experiment to show the vagaries of the rules. Some groups disallow multiclassing, but for those that allow it, I don't know many that consider a rogue/bard/knowledge cleric/etc. hybrid to maximize skills to be out of bounds as a gimmick too far. In between lie a vast gulf where no two groups agree perfectly.

[Segev]

One thing I'm considering in a thing I'm slowly working on is making a single goodberry only qualify as one meal, rather than a full day's rations. I'd leave the healing aspect alone. This IS a nerf, but it's one I think that plays a little bit better into the survival/attrition aspect than the healing aspect. Of course, D&D doesn't innately specify how many meals you need for a day's rations, so I have to house rule that to be 2 or 3 (I am going with 2 at the moment). It's still enough to keep up to a 5-man party going indefinitely on a single casting per day, food-wise.

If you want, instead, to nerf it so that it doesn't have the "spend today's leftover spell on tomorrow's healing" aspect, you could make it so that the berries only last a short period. An hour, or even as little as a minute, is probably sufficient to ensure people can get the benefit of the spell but can't benefit from saving spell slots "for tomorrow."

I will point out that that's probably not as big of a problem as you might think, though: if you're actively thinking about saving spell slots "for tomorrow," you've effectively reduced your number of spell slots for today, and if you do that consistently, you're at the same resource management level you were before. This just gives a little more flexibility when you naturally manage to have spell slots left open.

[Droppeddead]

Yes, though not due to anything you've noted in your post.

I dislike the ability to use a bunch of unused spellslots for the next day as a large amount of healing, especially when it's a first level spell. While it may be the designer's intention to let you do this, I dislike it, so I make the berries lose their potency either after 24 hours (as standard) or when the spell is cast again by the same person, meaning the maximum amount of berries you can bank is one slot's worth.

Added benefit means that the characters will only ever want to 'hold' one spellslot max, meaning they don't have to weigh up spell now vs. tomorrow's healing.

Is this something you often have a problem with? I'm geniunly curious. Because considering the facts, like that goodberries are rather hard to store (have you ever run around with a bunch of strawberries in your pocket?), what is the actual worst that could happen? You can't really use goodberries as an effective combat healing method since it take a whole action to eat a single one of them so even if you have like 60 of them you'll be sitting there for quite some time before you are back to full health.

So the only real consequence is that the characters can save up a few hit dice during a short rest or, at the very extreme end of things, they can save some time by getting back to full health without having to rest for 8 hours. They'll still be down on spell slots and such, though.

I don't know, I was thinking something similar at first but then I've just been more on the line that the risk of something really bad happening is just too low to consider a problem.

[Hal]

I'm running a hexcrawl game, with both a druid and a ranger in my party. Food and water haven't really been issues, between the ranger's background feature letting him find food/water, and the druid and cleric casting Create Water. Goodberry has . . . not come up very much.

I understand why someone might be concerned that Goodberry (or Wanderer) would circumvent any survival elements of the game. My contention is that those elements aren't as interesting as the concerned might imagine.

In the absence of Goodberry, rations become just a box on your character sheet to check off. Have 'em? Great. Don't have 'em? Buy 'em in town and move on.

Let's say you deliberately remove rations from your players. Now you're making survival checks to forage. Hopefully you have someone in the party with proficiency, right?

Let's say the foraging isn't working. Now your players have several days (3 + Con mod) to eat before they start gaining levels of exhaustion. (The exhaustion happens at the end of a single day if you don't have water.)

Now, exhaustion is a brutal feature. In my experience, players avoid it at all costs. Perhaps you're imagining some scenario where the players have to make difficult decisions: Do we chase after the villain and risk going hungry, or find food and possibly let him get away? With little food available, who do we let go hungry today? Do we dare go into combat when we're all hungry and dehydrated?

The thing is, those are very specific game circumstances with a lot of ways to avoid getting there. Players are unlikely to enjoy getting thrust into that place, the game makes it unlikely you'll find yourself in those circumstances, you have to specifically design the setting and narrative to reach those circumstances, and artificially maintaining those circumstances might become really tiresome to the players.

If that's the game you want to play, of course, more power to you. I suspect there are better systems than D&D for it. But I think for the vast majority of games and players, these rules will never come up and they'll be grateful for it.

[Amnestic]

Is this something you often have a problem with?

It only took it happening once for it to become a thing I wasn't a fan of.


Because considering the facts, like that goodberries are rather hard to store (have you ever run around with a bunch of strawberries in your pocket?),

There's no rules for 'crushing' goodberries in your pocket, spells only do what they say, so this is a non-issue regardless. Expecting a character to have a bag on hand for their berries isn't an issue any more than it is having a bag on hand for any other items they have.



So the only real consequence is that the characters can save up a few hit dice during a short rest or, at the very extreme end of things, they can save some time by getting back to full health without having to rest for 8 hours.

Short rests are 1 hour. Eating 60 goodberries is 6 minutes. There might well be a situation where they can't secure a location for an hour, but they can slip away for 5-6 minutes.

Stocked goodberry lets them heal extremely efficiently (no overhealing, because you only eat exactly as many as you need) with zero resource cost (because the resources were from the day before and unused).

You can reframe it from goodberries if you prefer. "Druids/Rangers have a class feature where they can expend a spell slot to create two healing potions* that last for 24 hours." Is it easier to see the problem when they're called healing potions instead of goodberry? idk maybe, I'm just typing words at this point.

*this is actually worse than goodberry due to efficient healing numbers and rarely is 1 hit point from 0 different to 2d4+2 hit points from 0.



I don't know, I was thinking something similar at first but then I've just been more on the line that the risk of something really bad happening is just too low to consider a problem.

I mean, I don't think it's a major change, nor do I really expect it to come up often, but it's a thing I didn't like with the spell so I changed it, that's all. I don't mind DMs who don't change it, to each their own, and as noted it doesn't seem to come up all that often either because of the campaign concepts in play or because players don't think of it (or both).

[Willie the Duck]

I understand why someone might be concerned that Goodberry (or Wanderer) would circumvent any survival elements of the game. My contention is that those elements aren't as interesting as the concerned might imagine.

I was thinking about mentioning this, but decided it would just complicate my analysis. You certainly aren't wrong. D&D, in general, even back in late 1e AD&D when the Wilderness Survival Guide came out hasn't done a lot genuinely interesting with a lot of the aspects of wilderness survival. In particular, it hasn't done much interesting with 'what happens if I don't get a meal today?' 5e in particular since exhaustion is such a non-granular system. Having to have rations, particularly if you also enforce encumbrance, is at least a limiter upon characters having other additional equipment instead. But yes, removing or limiting Goodberry won't in isolation, make wilderness survival an interesting subsystem for the game. That said, I don't see a lot of complaints regarding Goodberry's survival-trivializing made in isolation. Usually it is including in a list of issues, including the ones you raise.

[Valmark]

Why's that a nerf? I mean, sure, you can't use a focus for it, but most characters will need a component pouch anyway. Are there lots of DMs that require their players to track the individual components?

[KorvinStarmast]

If it's never I wonder if it's just not occurred to them. Blowing a bunch of spellslots on the last day of downtime so you're stocked up for a bunch of healing on your first day of an adventure makes sense, and there's gotta be days where you're not exhausting all your slots for something. Like I said, it never came up, nor did we tend to have extended periods of down time in the campaigns that had a druid.

If you're doing daily exhaustive encounters I can see it being less of an issue but that'll depend a lot on your campaign. Yes, that's very true.

Magical food can seem like a cheap solution, but to me it is still consuming a spell slot, and if the party has plenty of those to spare at the end of the day, that's just a sign to you as a DM that you are not providing enough encounters. That. (Bolding mine)

I also don't buff it so you can't shove it down the throat of an incapacitated target. We don't do that either.
Is 'gimmick' neutral enough for people? Synergy works.

[Man_Over_Game]

Goodberry exploits are only an issue if it stops other players at the table having fun.

Issues that might arise:

1) Another character has been built to be able to do some healing. They no longer get to contribute in the way their character was planned to
2) Another character has invested in survival capabilities through other means and this investment is now rendered worthless
3) The DM is wanting to run a campaign where attrition and resource managment is a big part of the game andadapting their vision to goodberry just makes their campaign worse
4) Players who want to play in a more attrition based campaign but cant do so as goodberry changes the campaign/prevents that plan from being realised.

There may be others, but generally check with the group and see what the group wants and depending on their answers make your rulings on goodberry. There is nothing inhearently wrong with rulling either way but is about finding the right rooling for a particular group/campaign.

Yep. It's an affordable (level 1) spell that basically replaces an entire class's unique identity. Nothing else about the spell's effect really matters.

It's not enough of a reason to nerf it, but enough of a reason that I should.

[MaxWilson]

Assumptions are dangerous things. Case in point:


Thirdly: Yes, there's a specific build you can make that can cheese Healing spells - Goodberry in particular. It's an excellent build for little more reason than the fact that it comes online at low levels. (CL3, I believe?) Congratulations, your player has designed their character to excel in one aspect of the game. If they want to do that, then it tells you one thing about your players: They don't want to play some grimdark survival horror where every encounter could mean their death.

Or they do want such a game and are preparing themselves to survive as long as possible in it.

In a Cthulhu game I wouldn't take Goodberry because it isn't actually very good at healing (and it doesn't synergize with Disciple of Life, according to the PHB, although Sage Advice disagrees), but I would love to have a Life Cleric 1/Lore Bard 6 (Aura of Vitality) in the party because at least that mostly mitigates one way you can die, and the Bard's Calm Emotions spells and Counterspell and Bardic Inspiration and eventual Greater Restoration mitigates another horrible end (going permanently insane from Dread). Wanting to be prepared isn't a signal that I don't want to play in the Cthulhu Mythos! It isn't even a sign that I'm going to get upset if despite all of my best efforts, everyone in the party goes stark raving mad and/or gets turned into living statues by Ghatanothoa's image or if Gobogeg erupts and destroys all life on the planet. It is a sign that I really want all of those things not to happen and will probably spend a lot of time thinking about the game in between sessions.

[da newt]

Just my opinion, but GB is just fine - leave it alone.

Life Cleric + GB per RAW as I read it, does not change the 1 hp per berry.

Disciple of Life
Also starting at 1st level, your Healing Spells are more effective. Whenever you use a spell of 1st level or higher to Restore Hit Points to a creature, the creature regains additional Hit Points equal to 2 + the spell’s level.

When you cast GB you DO NOT restore HP to a creature. So every GB is good for one day's food and 1 hp when a creature eats one - period - full stop.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Just my opinion, but GB is just fine - leave it alone.

Life Cleric + GB per RAW as I read it, does not change the 1 hp per berry.

Disciple of Life
Also starting at 1st level, your Healing Spells are more effective. Whenever you use a spell of 1st level or higher to Restore Hit Points to a creature, the creature regains additional Hit Points equal to 2 + the spell’s level.

When you cast GB you DO NOT restore HP to a creature. So every GB is good for one day's food and 1 hp when a creature eats one - period - full stop.

The key difference here being "use" vs "cast". There's certainly an argument to be made over intention but it doesn't say "cast" so it's open to being used with spells that offer healing outside of when they're cast... although its worth noting that Life Cleric's don't have access to any of them (aside from Regenerate) without multiclassing or feats.

[MaxWilson]

Just my opinion, but GB is just fine - leave it alone.

Life Cleric + GB per RAW as I read it, does not change the 1 hp per berry.

Disciple of Life
Also starting at 1st level, your Healing Spells are more effective. Whenever you use a spell of 1st level or higher to Restore Hit Points to a creature, the creature regains additional Hit Points equal to 2 + the spell’s level.

When you cast GB you DO NOT restore HP to a creature. So every GB is good for one day's food and 1 hp when a creature eats one - period - full stop.


The key difference here being "use" vs "cast". There's certainly an argument to be made over intention but it doesn't say "cast" so it's open to being used with spells that offer healing outside of when they're cast... although its worth noting that Life Cleric's don't have access to any of them (aside from Regenerate) without multiclassing or feats.

I agree with da newt here. There is no difference in this context between "use" vs. "cast" because Goodberry is not a spell that restores HP to a creature. It can eventually result in healing, just as Revivify can eventually result in healing and Animate Dead or Revivify can eventually result in something dying, but when the duration on Goodberry ends, no healing has occurred--the only thing that has happened is that some magical berries have appeared. @da newt is entirely correct that when you cast GB you DO NOT restore HP to a creature with that spell, full stop, so Disciple of Life does not benefit Goodberry.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I agree with da newt here. There is no difference in this context between "use" vs. "cast" because Goodberry is not a spell that restores HP to a creature. It can eventually result in healing, just as Revivify can eventually result in healing and Animate Dead or Revivify can eventually result in something dying, but when the duration on Goodberry ends, no healing has occurred--the only thing that has happened is that some magical berries have appeared. @da newt is entirely correct that when you cast GB you DO NOT restore HP to a creature with that spell, full stop, so Disciple of Life does not benefit Goodberry.

Hard disagree, especially when the wording of the 6th level feature uses "Cast" rather than "Use" for a nearly identical ability. I also disagree that the berries wouldn't be considered the effect of a spell, they are magical because of the spell.

This difference is important. Disciple of Life allows a spell like Aura of Vitality to benefit from it, while the wording of Blessed Healer does not. The only difference between what can qualify for each feature is "use" and "cast".

EDIT: I will say, I find an argument that you can only benefit from the enhanced healing if you eat a berry to be fair, another creature eating the berry themselves is not you using a spell.

[Droppeddead]

It only took it happening once for it to become a thing I wasn't a fan of.

So every time something happens that you aren't a fan of you change the rules?


There's no rules for 'crushing' goodberries in your pocket, spells only do what they say, so this is a non-issue regardless. Expecting a character to have a bag on hand for their berries isn't an issue any more than it is having a bag on hand for any other items they have.


There are plenty of things that there aren't specific rules for. Doesn't mean that it can't happen in the game. For example, I've never seen a "if you attack the king you will get tried for high crimes" rule. Would you say that this gives characters carte blanche to attack the king?


Short rests are 1 hour. Eating 60 goodberries is 6 minutes. There might well be a situation where they can't secure a location for an hour, but they can slip away for 5-6 minutes.

Yeah? So how is that such a huge problem?


Stocked goodberry lets them heal extremely efficiently (no overhealing, because you only eat exactly as many as you need) with zero resource cost (because the resources were from the day before and unused).

Well, the resource cost is that you can't have used up the spell slots the day before and that you have to spend a relatively long amount of time consuming the berries.


You can reframe it from goodberries if you prefer. "Druids/Rangers have a class feature where they can expend a spell slot to create two healing potions* that last for 24 hours." Is it easier to see the problem when they're called healing potions instead of goodberry? idk maybe, I'm just typing words at this point.

*this is actually worse than goodberry due to efficient healing numbers and rarely is 1 hit point from 0 different to 2d4+2 hit points from 0.

Well, no. A healing potion that can heal between four and ten times as many hit points in a single action is often a lot better than a single HP heal from a goodberry.


I mean, I don't think it's a major change, nor do I really expect it to come up often, but it's a thing I didn't like with the spell so I changed it, that's all. I don't mind DMs who don't change it, to each their own, and as noted it doesn't seem to come up all that often either because of the campaign concepts in play or because players don't think of it (or both).

But what is it that you don't like about it? That people (remember, NPCs can do it as well) might save a few hours of resting time do gain a slight heal? I'm just having a hard time seeing what the major harm is, I guess.

[hitchhike79]

This isnt a survival game, food and water are in the game for an immersive feel from way back in the day.

A game thats too lifelike is not fun and managing how much food and water i have is ridiculous.
Make it fun and simple, dont nit pick if someone has food or a spell that creates food or water.

Not a single one of you mentioned the fact that their players were captured and escaped with nothing and need to survive.
Thats why you need these spells yet none of you want to run that scenario because no one wants to lose all their stuff and will stop playing.

Im in a campaign now were we need to keep food and water but just because its built into the rest function and we have limited space for storage, it works well but the DM doesnt go hell bent or pissed if we use a spell to bypass the mechanic now and then.

Get over it and move on, work on better scenes and NPC interaction rather than if i payed 3silver for some rations and water.

[Segev]

This isnt a survival gameWhile this is a true statement, I do not think it reflects design intent, but rather design failure to meet intent.


food and water are in the game for an immersive feel from way back in the day.Yes, but also not entirely. Exploration is one of the pillars of the game, according to the ethos set out in the opening of the PHB and DMG. And a part of exploration - the kind that D&D advertises supporting - is the "expedition into the unknown." This comes with certain tropes and traits, including a survival aspect.

5e, for better or worse, does not support this aspect of the game very well, glossing over it and trying to find ways to use the combat pillar to make up for its lacking in trying to give that feeling of the dangers of the wilderness.

Those who are voicing discontent with something obviating what little there is of that part of the game in the rules are not necessarily wrong: they recognize that something is missing, and that the rules they're examining further exacerbate the problem. Unfortunately, an actual solution probably requires significantly more development to create gameplay options that actually make the exploration pillar - and the resource-management minigame that goes with it - more fun.

[MrStabby]

This isnt a survival game, food and water are in the game for an immersive feel from way back in the day.

A game thats too lifelike is not fun and managing how much food and water i have is ridiculous.
Make it fun and simple, dont nit pick if someone has food or a spell that creates food or water.

Not a single one of you mentioned the fact that their players were captured and escaped with nothing and need to survive.
Thats why you need these spells yet none of you want to run that scenario because no one wants to lose all their stuff and will stop playing.

Im in a campaign now were we need to keep food and water but just because its built into the rest function and we have limited space for storage, it works well but the DM doesnt go hell bent or pissed if we use a spell to bypass the mechanic now and then.

Get over it and move on, work on better scenes and NPC interaction rather than if i payed 3silver for some rations and water.

It sounds like you are making a lot of assumptions about:

a) How people are playing the game
b) What people enjoy about the game
c) How people should ply the game
d) How the game is in some abstract way intended to be played


Given that people are acitvly discussing issues they have found with this, it would seem that at least two of these assumptions are unfounded.

I think that trying to understand the context of the problems people have had and why they feel this would have a deleterious effect on their game might help us make some constructive responses.

[MaxWilson]

Hard disagree, especially when the wording of the 6th level feature uses "Cast" rather than "Use" for a nearly identical ability. I also disagree that the berries wouldn't be considered the effect of a spell, they are magical because of the spell.

The difference between "use" and "cast" is that you cast the spell once, but you can use it multiple times. Disciple of Life would boost Regenerate's healing by +9 every time it healed the target, but Blessed Healer would only give the caster back 9 HP once. But in order for either to work, it has to be a spell which restores HP, and Goodberry isn't--any more than Teleport is a spell which heals or damages creatures just because you used it to Teleport a magical creature like a ki-rin. The spell (Teleport, or Goodberry) is separate from and also has a separate duration from the magic of the thing teleported or created.


This difference is important. Disciple of Life allows a spell like Aura of Vitality to benefit from it, (A) while the wording of Blessed Healer does not. The only difference between what can qualify for each feature is "use" and "cast".

EDIT: I will say, (B) I find an argument that you can only benefit from the enhanced healing if you eat a berry to be fair, another creature eating the berry themselves is not you using a spell.

(A) seems like a controversial claim, because is Aura of Vitality really not "a spell of 1st level or higher that restores hit points to a creature other than you"?, but that's certainly one way to read it. I don't think it matters much either way since it's only 7 HP at stake and you're casting a spell which will restore 120+ HP.

(B) I don't understand the argument you're making. Why would something which is not "a spell of 1st level or higher [which restores] hit points to a creature" become one just because you eat a berry, or vice versa? Unlike Blessed Healer, Disciple of Life has no "other than you" clause.

Edit: oh, is this because you're focusing on the "you" in "Whenever you use a spell of 1st level or higher to restore hit points to a creature"?

[hitchhike79]

It sounds like you are making a lot of assumptions about:

a) How people are playing the game
b) What people enjoy about the game
c) How people should ply the game
d) How the game is in some abstract way intended to be played


Given that people are acitvly discussing issues they have found with this, it would seem that at least two of these assumptions are unfounded.

I think that trying to understand the context of the problems people have had and why they feel this would have a deleterious effect on their game might help us make some constructive responses.



I am making assumptions because the game is littered with reasons to bypass the need to worry about food/water.

It feels designed as an interesting part of the game, not something that it hinges on. (Since we cant play Dark Sun in 5E)

If the DM's are literally worried about this and making an issue with food and water usage, well we have gone to far off the deep end in my mind.

The healing part of Goodberry, yes i can see that getting out of hand if abused but come on... most of the convo in this thread is about the food properties? Really?

Im playing in a game right now that is very specific about food and water, its needed to rest... no food = no rest.
We also have limited carry space so we cant just take x20 Rations everywhere we go.
I am playing a fighter and still i have no problem with food or water for a day or two of adventure.
If things get bad, we would hunt/forage and eat but the game doesnt hinge on my ability to eat nor is it designed to.

[JNAProductions]

I am making assumptions because the game is littered with reasons to bypass the need to worry about food/water.

It feels designed as an interesting part of the game, not something that it hinges on. (Since we cant play Dark Sun in 5E)

If the DM's are literally worried about this and making an issue with food and water usage, well we have gone to far off the deep end in my mind.

The healing part of Goodberry, yes i can see that getting out of hand if abused but come on... most of the convo in this thread is about the food properties? Really?

Im playing in a game right now that is very specific about food and water, its needed to rest... no food = no rest.
We also have limited carry space so we cant just take x20 Rations everywhere we go.
I am playing a fighter and still i have no problem with food or water for a day or two of adventure.
If things get bad, we would hunt/forage and eat but the game doesnt hinge on my ability to eat nor is it designed to.

I'd agree that a normal game of 5E isn't about survival against the elements, with starvation and thirst and weather and all that.

But I heartily disagree that you CANNOT run it that way. You'd have to tweak the game (such as with Goodberry) but it's not some antithesis to 5E that negates the point of the system. It's just some minor tweaks and a certain tone.

[hitchhike79]

I'd agree that a normal game of 5E isn't about survival against the elements, with starvation and thirst and weather and all that.

But I heartily disagree that you CANNOT run it that way. You'd have to tweak the game (such as with Goodberry) but it's not some antithesis to 5E that negates the point of the system. It's just some minor tweaks and a certain tone.

I totally agree that you can run a hard core game and make people struggle for everything, i loved it playing Dark Sun back in the day.
5E is not that game and never could be without significant tweaks.

Either way i do find it very interesting that so many people are tied up on the food management.

[Dork_Forge]

The closest I've come to experiencing this kind of thing was once, years ago in a 3 shot. Since it was a throw away game and I was a much younger DM I just let it slide, but I don't think I would nowadays.

On the spell itself, I think there's solid grounds for it not interacting with Disciple of Life, but generally just dislike it. It's a first level spell that trivialises an entire piece of the the game (food) for extremely low cost (especially since cantrips are so viable). In my games I don't allow an unconscious creature to be fed a berry, and require an increasing DC Con save for every berry eaten after the first, why? Because it's an entire day's worth of nutrition in a single, concentrated berry, you better believe that will have consequences. The stacking of berries at long rest with unused slots also feels utterly gamist and is something I'd bring up if it started to happen.

[ProsecutorGodot]

(A) seems like a controversial claim, because is Aura of Vitality really not "a spell of 1st level or higher that restores hit points to a creature other than you"?, but that's certainly one way to read it. I don't think it matters much either way since it's only 7 HP at stake and you're casting a spell which will restore 120+ HP.
I don't see how its controversial, you're not "casting" aura of vitality to restore hit points. Aura of Vitality gives you a special bonus action, which you later use to heal people. It is still a spell doing the healing, just not at the moment you cast it.


Edit: oh, is this because you're focusing on the "you" in "Whenever you use a spell of 1st level or higher to restore hit points to a creature"?

Yes, and I will admit a lot of my opinion on this is overly pedantic. If push came to shove, I'm not going to argue over which is correct and I'd be happy to go with the popular ruling at whatever table I play in.

It's hard to determine exactly what the intended outcome is. Like I mentioned previously, Life Cleric only has access to Regenerate which heals at and after its casting so it would always qualify for both features*.
*Though I'm sure there's enough room to debate whether the lasting effect of Regenerate benefits from Disciple of Life, my gut tells me it does and that it might be a reason for the specific wording of "use".

[MaxWilson]

I don't see how its controversial, you're not "casting" aura of vitality to restore hit points. Aura of Vitality gives you a special bonus action, which you later use to heal people. It is still a spell doing the healing, just not at the moment you cast it.

So you acknowledge that you ARE casting it to restore HP (to creatures other than yourself, usually), but you don't think that's enough to trigger Blessed Healer because the healing doesn't happen immediately after the casting? I don't see that requirement in Blessed Healer itself. I don't care enough to argue more about it though.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So you acknowledge that you ARE casting it to restore HP (to creatures other than yourself, usually), but you don't think that's enough to trigger Blessed Healer because the healing doesn't happen immediately after the casting? I don't see that requirement in Blessed Healer itself. I don't care enough to argue more about it though.

No, I said casting it does nothing but allow you to use a bonus action to heal somebody, in exactly the same way that you say casting Goodberry does nothing but allow you to use an action to eat a berry. Casting Aura of Vitality does not heal anything, you did not cast a spell that restores hit points, there was no creature being healed at the moment of casting.

It doesn't look for spells that can heal when you cast them, otherwise Goodberry should qualify just the same.

[MaxWilson]

No, I said casting it does nothing but allow you to use a bonus action to heal somebody, in exactly the same way that you say casting Goodberry does nothing but allow you to use an action to eat a berry.

"It is still a spell [Aura of Vitality] doing the healing, just not at the moment you cast it."

The difference is that you acknowledge that Aura of Vitality is still a spell doing the healing, whereas I deny that Goodberry involves a spell doing the healing.


It doesn't look for spells that can heal when you cast them, otherwise Goodberry should qualify just the same.

No, Goodberry never qualifies as a spell that "can heal", at any time in its duration. All it ever does is create berries, just like all Revivify ever does is raise a creature from the dead. If that creature or those berries later is involved in restoring HP to someone or killing someone (long after the spell itself has ended), that doesn't make Goodberry (or Revivify) qualify as a spell which restores HP or kills creatures--unlike what you've acknowledged for Aura of Vitality.

But I don't care enough to argue about it any more, won't post again in this thread on that topic.

[ProsecutorGodot]

whereas I deny that Goodberry involves a spell doing the healing.
...
But I don't care enough to argue about it any more, won't post again in this thread on that topic.

Up to ten berries appear in your hand and are infused with magic for the duration. A creature can use its action to eat one berry. Eating a berry restores 1 hit point, and the berry provides enough nourishment to sustain a creature for one day.

The berries lose their potency if they have not been consumed within 24 hours of the casting of this spell.
That magical potency is just as much a part of the spell casting as the creation of the berries is, they are unable to heal without the spells magic. The berries are permanent, the spells magic lasts for 24 hours.

I don't know how else to communicate my case here, and you're clearly intent on not even considering it, so we're just going to have to leave it here.

[MaxWilson]

That magical potency is just as much a part of the spell casting as the creation of the berries is, they are unable to heal without the spells magic. The berries are permanent, the spells magic lasts for 24 hours.

I don't know how else to communicate my case here, and you're clearly intent on not even considering it, so we're just going to have to leave it here.

Apparently I was wrong, because I do care enough to at least address your implicit question, which is "what would need to change in order for MaxWilson to adopt ProsecutorGodot's viewpoint?"

You say, "the spells magic lasts for 24 hours." You would apparently say Goodberry's duration is 24 hours.

If Goodberry's duration said "24 hours" I would agree with you. The PHB I have, however, says "Duration: instantaneous."

[ProsecutorGodot]

Apparently I do care enough to at least address your implicit question, which is "what would need to change in order for MaxWilson to adopt ProsecutorGodot's viewpoint?"

You say, "the spells magic lasts for 24 hours." You would apparently say Goodberry's duration is 24 hours.

If Goodberry's duration said "24 hours" I would agree with you. The PHB I have, however, says "Duration: instantaneous."

It also says they are infused with magic for the duration. That certainly doesn't reference the Instantaneous duration, otherwise they would never be magical under your reading. It references the 24 hours that they remain magically potent.

[greenstone]

I've never run into someone casting multiple goodberries.
In the two games I've been in with a character with goodberry, the players in question never used first level slots for anything other than goodberry. It was not uncommon for the druid to have a pouch with 40 or 50 berries in it.

Their reasoning was that (out of combat) 10 berries (free) was better than a healing potion (50GP).

[Silpharon]

In a current game, I'm planning on going Artificer Armorer main, Ranger 2+, and Divine Soul Sorcerer 4+. I will be getting Goodberry from ranger, and fully intend to burn my remaining spell slots before a long rest to get as many goodberries for the next day as possible. In addition, I'm using Font of Magic to create additional 1st level spells from sorcery points, and even breaking down 4th level slots into two 1st level slots for maximum Goodberry goodness.

Am I exploiting the game? I'd say no, I'm building a character that can do this. It's logical to want to get max utility out of spell slot resources, especially for a martial class that focuses on utility spells over combat spells. Is it broken? No, the DM can throw more battles per day at us if he wants to. We have no cleric, and this provides another healing mechanism. Presently it's likely I'll be a 6th level caster at 20, providing a max of 230 berries. In reality I'll be burning slots during the day, so let's say 100 berries make it. If my party of 5 takes damage from a fireball, two Prayers of Healing will be just as good, for 2 2nd level spell slots.

From a survival perspective, I'd be set with an alchemy jug (through Replicate Magic Item infusion). Plenty of water for the party.

I don't understand why a DM would nerf this. Why wreck legal player ingenuity instead of finding bigger challenges?

[Thunderous Mojo]

There's no rules for 'crushing' goodberries in your pocket, spells only do what they say, so this is a non-issue regardless.
The spell is an instantaneous effect that creates 10 tiny objects, namely Goodberries. The DMG has rules on damaging objects, and the DMG also makes it clear that it is DM fiat, to decide when those rules apply.

Ruling that a Goodberry, is a Tiny object with 1hp seems a solid call, given a lock has 8 Hit Points, at most, per RAW.

but come on... most of the convo in this thread is about the food properties? Really?
It is the most interesting part of the spell. For humans that is around 1000 calories per day. Eating 60 Goodberries is eating Sixty days of food. For humans that is 60,000 calories.

Vitamin poisoning through excessive use of multi-vitamins does happen, in real life. A game that added such details to spells, is a game I can 'believe in' and thus going to keep my interest and my investment.

I also don't mind games that hand wave away aspects that they find are tedious.


Have another Goodberry, it is wafer thin!🃏
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRpt4a6H99c

[Droppeddead]

Have another Goodberry, it is wafer thin!🃏
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRpt4a6H99c

If you want to be nice I think it's better if you start out something like this. ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-ea06-S17M

[Kwinza]

DMs don't like their players making the 'rations' element of survival a non-issue.

Are you telling me that a party with a Druid, a nature based class that’s meant to live in the wilderness, has an easier time surviving in the wild than a team without one?!?

Quite frankly I’m disgusted at the game for this clear balance violation.

What next, a team with a rogue being good at stealing things? Madness I say!

[Amnestic]

The spell is an instantaneous effect that creates 10 tiny objects, namely Goodberries. The DMG has rules on damaging objects, and the DMG also makes it clear that it is DM fiat, to decide when those rules apply.

Ruling that a Goodberry, is a Tiny object with 1hp seems a solid call, given a lock has 8 Hit Points, at most, per RAW.

Unless you're tracking damage to every object the player is carrying too (waterskin, rations, etc.) you're being needlessly nitpicky. Have you overstuffed your backpack and made your waterskin burst due to pressure? Are you providing a neatly detailed description of exactly how your packs have been packed to make sure there's no sharp edges that might damage something? That your potion isn't going to tip over and get crushed because you took the Dash action and moved just a bit too fast too quick?

Nah, you're not. At least 99.999% of games aren't.

[Droppeddead]

Unless you're tracking damage to every object the player is carrying too (waterskin, rations, etc.) you're being needlessly nitpicky. Have you overstuffed your backpack and made your waterskin burst due to pressure? Are you providing a neatly detailed description of exactly how your packs have been packed to make sure there's no sharp edges that might damage something? That your potion isn't going to tip over and get crushed because you took the Dash action and moved just a bit too fast too quick?

Nah, you're not. At least 99.999% of games aren't.

Well, that is just arguing to the absurd. Waterskins are meant to hold water. Potions have corks or stoppers and so on (also, bottles don't spontaneously break just because you jog). Supplies are made to be carried. Berries on the other hand, are quite squishy and usually don't fare well when stuffed down pockets or pouches.

That said, yes, there would be situations when an unlucky roll or bad call could result in burst waterskins or broken equipment.

[KorvinStarmast]

In my games I don't allow an unconscious creature to be fed a berry, and require an increasing DC Con save for every berry eaten after the first, why? Because it's an entire day's worth of nutrition in a single, concentrated berry, you better believe that will have consequences. The stacking of berries at long rest with unused slots also feels utterly gamist and is something I'd bring up if it started to happen. My DM and I figured out that it would take 3 or 4 goodberrries to feed the horse pulling our wagon. I often ended up feeding a few to that beast; beats carrying a lot of sacks of oats for that part of the adventure.

Their reasoning was that (out of combat) 10 berries (free) was better than a healing potion (50GP).It's also ten days worth of food / nutrition. As noted above, save versus indigestion. :smallbiggrin:

[Zhorn]

'Absurd'.... maybe, it does sound that way, but the point is still valid. Making a rule to cover only a specific item while ignoring everything else that would undergo the same treatment is just asking for that rule to end up being ignored.

As a DM, I'm admittingly a stickler for encumbrance and tracking the 'how' of storing items for transport in sacks, bags, etc (bags and containers in the PHB have their capacities listed). But hit points of individual items, that's a hard pass from me, outside of rare exceptions for rust monsters and oozes, items exist in their binary of 'working as normal' and 'broken', and that 'broken' isn't going to be arbitrarily handed out just because I felt like being an antagonistic DM, which squishing Goodberries in the PC's pockets sounds very much like that to me...

Fall off a ledge with a backpack containing a bunch of potions? There's no way I'm gonna have those bottle shatter when the PC hits the ground, be there a roll for that or not. Same for Goodberies. If you hold the rule of one, hold it consistent across the board.

Now if they had an item out in hand and something was going on that could lead to it breaking? Maybe, but that'll come down to the context of what's happening at the given moment. Like with the idea of Thieves Tools breaking when attempting to pick a lock and rolling a nat 1. They don't break when they are in your bags and not in use, but if something bad happens WHILE they are in use, or a check was done while they are actively involved in a scene then they could be at risk, as such a thing would be consistent with weapons and armor being affected by oozes/rust monsters, being used for attack and defense against such creatures and thus actively in the scene at the time of the event.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I don't nerf it, there is no need to nerf anything. As the DM I have all the power and total control over everything in the world, I can just change what if happening to give the players the situation that makes the game fun for everyone.

Nerfing a tool, even if it is one that isn't being used makes the game less fun for me. The more tools the happier I am.

(I actually have a life cleric-druid in one of my current games. It goes well. It is TOA, they are in the tomb, just got to level 2 of the tomb. The druid healed the rogue for 150 hp last session and started charging gold for a berry)

[Droppeddead]

'Absurd'.... maybe, it does sound that way, but the point is still valid. Making a rule to cover only a specific item while ignoring everything else that would undergo the same treatment is just asking for that rule to end up being ignored.

What rule are you talking about? The suggested nerf to goodberries? Because that's really the only "rule to cover only a specific item while ignoring everything else that would undergo the same treatment" mentioned in this thread.


As a DM, I'm admittingly a stickler for encumbrance and tracking the 'how' of storing items for transport in sacks, bags, etc (bags and containers in the PHB have their capacities listed). But hit points of individual items, that's a hard pass from me, outside of rare exceptions for rust monsters and oozes, items exist in their binary of 'working as normal' and 'broken', and that 'broken' isn't going to be arbitrarily handed out just because I felt like being an antagonistic DM, which squishing Goodberries in the PC's pockets sounds very much like that to me...

Did you read the thread? Like, the whole thing? The squashed goodberries was something pointed out to counter the "goodberries are to awzum-sauce, they must me nerfed or else they ruin the whole campaign!"-argument being put forward. It was simply to point out that berries are rather squishy and storing scores of them is always a viable option.


Fall off a ledge with a backpack containing a bunch of potions? There's no way I'm gonna have those bottle shatter when the PC hits the ground, be there a roll for that or not. Same for Goodberies. If you hold the rule of one, hold it consistent across the board.

Again, who's not consistent? Also, you do realize there is quite the difference between a squishy berry and a hard object, right?


Now if they had an item out in hand and something was going on that could lead to it breaking? Maybe, but that'll come down to the context of what's happening at the given moment. Like with the idea of Thieves Tools breaking when attempting to pick a lock and rolling a nat 1. They don't break when they are in your bags and not in use, but if something bad happens WHILE they are in use, or a check was done while they are actively involved in a scene then they could be at risk, as such a thing would be consistent with weapons and armor being affected by oozes/rust monsters, being used for attack and defense against such creatures and thus actively in the scene at the time of the event.

Now you're just widely off topic but why would a natural 1 cause the thieves' tools to spontanously explode or disintegrate? There's nothing magical or dangerous about rolling a 1 for an ability check.

Anyway, there are many ways to limit the (according to some people) world-shattering powers of the simple goodberries without having to nerf the rules for them.

[Porcupinata]

The way my table play Goodberry is...

Goodberry and Disciple of Life don't stack for the reason other people have already been arguing about - the spell doesn't heal, it creates an object.
Because each Goodberry provides a full day's worth of food, you can't eat more than one a day - if you try to eat (or someone tries to feed you) a second one you'll be unable to digest it and cough it back up without it having any effect on you.

The second point is the most important one. Basically, this means that at our table 90% of the time Goodberry is just used to provide trail rations and prevent the need for foraging - which is fine, because at low level you're sacrificing a spell slot of which you only have few so it's still a significant cost; and at higher level when the low level spell slot is no longer relevant you'd be carrying around lots of food in bags of holding anyway so it no longer being relevant doesn't matter. It's very rare for it to be used for healing, with the occasional exception of feeding a single berry to someone who has been downed (assuming they've not had one yet that day).

It also means we don't get a druid spending all their low level spell slots of Goodberry to produce buckets of the things for people to eat by the handful.

[Segev]

'Absurd'.... maybe, it does sound that way, but the point is still valid. Making a rule to cover only a specific item while ignoring everything else that would undergo the same treatment is just asking for that rule to end up being ignored.
I think you're making an unfounded assumption, here. Berries are fragile and easily bruised, and if you carry them in a sack without proper care, they're going to start getting damaged. Transporting fruit is actually a pretty delicate process, to my understanding, and has always been something that farmers, merchants, and grocers had to take special precaution with. Apples are perhaps one of the most forgiving of them, and they bruise easily enough that they're usually transported in barrels to at least protect them from external bumps. The self-weight of berries can start crushing them if you get too many together.

The items you listed in your "but do you also...?" examples are things that are already special precautions, designed for travel the way that they're used. Nevertheless, if you've got a bunch of potions in fragile vials/bottles, I have certainly seen DMs have you check to see if they break when you take great falls or otherwise have something happen that puts their integrity in question.

DMs won't have you check for "bursting" your backpack; they'll just ask you how much you've got in it and tell you such-and-such won't fit (and sometimes precipitate an argument over what is a "reasonable" size for a backpack, etc.).

But yes, if you don't have some way of telling the DM how you're transporting your 50(!?) berries to make sure they don't get crushed or bruised, he's well within his rights to say they get damaged. Just like anything else that's somewhat delicate.

Of course, the answer is to wrap them in handfuls of no more than 10 (maybe as few as 5) and carry these small bags individually. 10 bags of 5 berries each in a party of 4 is 3 bags on two PCs, and 2 bags on the other two. Easy enough, and not likely to get bruised unless he IS checking to see if your potions are breaking.

There's also the option of storing them on the wagon or cart, if you've got one. Or in a small barrel originally intended for mead; 50 berries probably aren't going to crush each other with their self-weight.

[LudicSavant]

Thirdly: Yes, there's a specific build you can make that can cheese Healing spells - Goodberry in particular. It's an excellent build for little more reason than the fact that it comes online at low levels. (CL3, I believe?) Congratulations, your player has designed their character to excel in one aspect of the game.

Life Cleric dip builds aren't one trick ponies though, like, at all.

[MaxWilson]

Life Cleric dip builds aren't one trick ponies though, like, at all.

But for druids and rangers, most of their best tricks aren't applicable. That no-metal-armor restriction on druids is harsh.

[Amnestic]

Well, that is just arguing to the absurd. Waterskins are meant to hold water. Potions have corks or stoppers and so on (also, bottles don't spontaneously break just because you jog). Supplies are made to be carried. Berries on the other hand, are quite squishy and usually don't fare well when stuffed down pockets or pouches.

That said, yes, there would be situations when an unlucky roll or bad call could result in burst waterskins or broken equipment.

How is it absurd? If you're being nitpicky enough to require the goodberries to be specifically held in a place where they won't get squished from movement (which now deals HP damage to objects, apparently? News to me.) then you should be exactly that nitpicky with the placement of every other object on your person at all times.

Love the assertion that merely carrying goodberries in too large a pile is enough to ruin them but getting fireballed in the face would do zero damage to any of your held items/equipment (including the goodberries!) eh?

[LudicSavant]

But for druids and rangers, most of their best tricks aren't applicable. That no-metal-armor restriction on druids is harsh.

Not sure what you're saying here. A druid doesn't go from being a good all-rounder to sucking at everything if they take a 1 level dip. Nor do you even need any Druid levels at all to get Goodberry on your spell list.

[MaxWilson]

Life Cleric dip builds aren't one trick ponies though, like, at all.
But for druids and rangers, most of their best tricks aren't applicable. That no-metal-armor restriction on druids is harsh.
Not sure what you're saying here. A druid doesn't go from being a good all-rounder to sucking at everything if they take a 1 level dip. Nor do you even need any Druid levels at all to get Goodberry on your spell list.

Life Cleric is great on e.g. a Necromancer or Evoker, because you get heavy armor + shield, Sanctuary (bonus action, no concentration!)/Protection From Evil/Bless as uses for your first-level slots, extra healing from Vampiric Touch if you use it, the ability to Contingency: Cure Wounds yourself back up from 0 HP if you get dropped (and if the DM is using vanilla PHB rules on pop-up healing, which I personally don't), and pop-up healing for your buddies via Healing Word and/or Cure Wounds.

But for druids, access to Cure Wounds/Healing Word is redundant (they already have it), they don't have Contingency, they don't have Vampiric Touch, their concentration is already busy with other things so they can't really use Bless, they already have medium armor + shield proficiency and they can't wear most types of heavy armor anyway, etc. For a druid, Life Cleric 1 brings minimal benefit, with Greatberry-if-your-DM-buys-that-argument as the single biggest benefit.

[Segev]

But for druids, access to Cure Wounds/Healing Word is redundant (they already have it), they don't have Contingency, they don't have Vampiric Touch, their concentration is already busy with other things so they can't really use Bless, they already have medium armor + shield proficiency and they can't wear most types of heavy armor anyway, etc. For a druid, Life Cleric 1 brings minimal benefit, with Greatberry-if-your-DM-buys-that-argument as the single biggest benefit.

The biggest other benefit I can think of is the same for any spellcasting dip out of Druid: you get Wisdom Modifier +1 more spells prepared.

[Droppeddead]

How is it absurd?
For the reasons already mentioned. If you read them and still have trouble understanding, let us know and I can try to explain again.


If you're being nitpicky enough to require the goodberries to be specifically held in a place where they won't get squished from movement (which now deals HP damage to objects, apparently? News to me.) then you should be exactly that nitpicky with the placement of every other object on your person at all times.

Well no, this is just arguing the absurd, for the reasons already mentioned the last time you brought up this absurd argument. Are you honestly incapable of understanding the difference between a berry and a glas bottle? Is that something that people nowadays don't know about?


Love the assertion that merely carrying goodberries in too large a pile is enough to ruin them but getting fireballed in the face would do zero damage to any of your held items/equipment (including the goodberries!) eh?

I find it's interesting that you, the person who has been complaining about how goodberries are so overpowered that a single use of them has ruined your entire opinion on them to the point where you want to nerf the entire spell, would rather go to the extremes of nerfing them rather than try a more narratively suitable solution to the percieved problem. I don't know, I just think it's funny that you would go to such extremes instead of just going with the easy and obvious solution. To each their own, I guess. :)

[Amnestic]

Well no, this is just arguing the absurd, for the reasons already mentioned the last time you brought up this absurd argument. Are you honestly incapable of understanding the difference between a berry and a glas bottle? Is that something that people nowadays don't know about?


Glass bottles shatter pretty easily, as it turns out. Are you rolling for that every time you're knocked prone? Maybe every time you get hit with a bludgeoning weapon?

Or hell, you don't even need to get hit. AC includes taking the blow but no damage from it, so we should probably check for damaged equipment on every attack roll, including misses, to see if they slam their mace into your backpack or slash it open with a sword.

I mean if we're engaging with the conceit of "movement can damage carried items" then surely attacks with enormous hammers can do it too. Fall damage as well. Maybe knockbacks like thunderclap.



I find it's interesting that you, the person who has been complaining

"Complaining".

The question came up if people had an issue with it. I noted my issue and explained my fix.



about how goodberries are so overpowered that a single use of them has ruined your entire opinion on them to the point where you want to nerf the entire spell, would rather go to the extremes of nerfing them rather than try a more narratively suitable solution to the percieved problem. I don't know, I just think it's funny that you would go to such extremes instead of just going with the easy and obvious solution. To each their own, I guess. :)

How is it a narratively suitable solution to the problem when you can fix it with buying a few pouches at an exorbitant 5sp each while also opening the question of damage to other carried items? You've not fixed anything other than added a slight one-off up-front cost to the spell, something which is payable even by first level characters at creation, nevermind later down the line when they actually have spell slots to burn on it at the end of an adventuring day (or before an adventuring day).

Personally I think a half-sentence to the spell's description is a much more elegant solution, in that it actually solves my problem with it.

[Droppeddead]

Glass bottles shatter pretty easily, as it turns out. Are you rolling for that every time you're knocked prone? Maybe every time you get hit with a bludgeoning weapon?

Okey, so here's the thing. Berries are a lot more fragile than glass bottles. Maybe you didn't know this, but it's actually true. If you don't believe me, test it for yourself. Put a handful of berries in one pocket, put a glass bottle in another pockets and walk around for a few hours and let me know what happened.


Or hell, you don't even need to get hit. AC includes taking the blow but no damage from it, so we should probably check for damaged equipment on every attack roll, including misses, to see if they slam their mace into your backpack or slash it open with a sword.

Seriously though, why do you keep going on with these ridiculously exagerated examples. We've tried to explain this to you numerous times but you keep on ignoring i´what has been said. Any aprticular reason why you do that?


I mean if we're engaging with the conceit of "movement can damage carried items" then surely attacks with enormous hammers can do it too. Fall damage as well. Maybe knockbacks like thunderclap.

Yeah, this is just a false statement that you have just made up. No-one, except for you, has made any such blanket statements as "movement can damage carried items". What people have done is pointing out the fact that certain very fragile items can be damaged if not handled properly. We have also explained the difference to you multiple times.


"Complaining".

The question came up if people had an issue with it. I noted my issue and explained my fix.

Mhm. And when asked what the actual problem is and having been presented with a more logical and narratively suitable solution to the percieved problem, you have kept on complaining instead of answering the actual questions.


How is it a narratively suitable solution to the problem when you can fix it with buying a few pouches at an exorbitant 5sp each while also opening the question of damage to other carried items?

Because the first part solves your problem and the second part is just a strawman argument that you have made up yourself. The solution to that is to not make up strawman arguments, by the way. :)


You've not fixed anything other than added a slight one-off up-front cost to the spell, something which is payable even by first level characters at creation, nevermind later down the line when they actually have spell slots to burn on it at the end of an adventuring day (or before an adventuring day).

Well, it does solve the problem that you made up that it requires zero resources. It might be easier for people to help you solve the problem if you actually tell us what the problem is? So far all you've said is that goodberries are terribly overpowered and ruins everything but you haven't told us why you think that is the case.


Personally I think a half-sentence to the spell's description is a much more elegant solution, in that it actually solves my problem with it.

Well, of course you do. Since you've made a strawman out of the suggested solution and haven't even explained what your original problem is. Mind doing that, finally?

[Amnestic]

It might be easier for people to help you solve the problem if you actually tell us what the problem is? So far all you've said is that goodberries are terribly overpowered and ruins everything but you haven't told us why you think that is the case.

I don't need the problem to be solved, because I already solved it. I was sharing my issue with the spell and I shared my fix at the same time. I explained what the problem is in my very first post of this thread:



I dislike the ability to use a bunch of unused spellslots for the next day as a large amount of healing, especially when it's a first level spell. While it may be the designer's intention to let you do this, I dislike it, so I make the berries lose their potency either after 24 hours (as standard) or when the spell is cast again by the same person, meaning the maximum amount of berries you can bank is one slot's worth.

I've also not said that goodberries are terribly overpowered. When questioned about the logic behind my thought process (by you, no less), I noted:



I mean, I don't think it's a major change, nor do I really expect it to come up often, but it's a thing I didn't like with the spell so I changed it, that's all. I don't mind DMs who don't change it, to each their own, and as noted it doesn't seem to come up all that often either because of the campaign concepts in play or because players don't think of it (or both).


No-one, except for you, has made any such blanket statements as "movement can damage carried items".

Respectfully, from your post:


Because considering the facts, like that goodberries are rather hard to store (have you ever run around with a bunch of strawberries in your pocket?),

What alternate reading is there other than "movement damages the goodberries" from your example?

Regardless, I'm done with this discussion - it's no longer productive.

[MaxWilson]

I dislike the ability to use a bunch of unused spellslots for the next day as a large amount of healing, especially when it's a first level spell. While it may be the designer's intention to let you do this, I dislike it, so I make the berries lose their potency either after 24 hours (as standard) or when the spell is cast again by the same person, meaning the maximum amount of berries you can bank is one slot's worth.

Hmmm. Seems reasonable, and idiomatic for 5E. (E.g. Find Familiar, Find Steed are similar.) Thanks for sharing.

[Captain Panda]

No, because I think that's a jerk DM-move.

That about sums up my opinion on it.

[Captain Panda]

When you cast GB you DO NOT restore HP to a creature. So every GB is good for one day's food and 1 hp when a creature eats one - period - full stop.

The rules clarification makes it clear (and did years ago) that RAW and RAI, it works.

There need be no further debate on the topic, if you want to house rule it you can, but the designers made the intent of the interaction clear.

[Elbeyon]

If someone has a problem with goodberry, they should change the spell for the game. The worse way to try to balance something is by being annoying and annoying the players to try to change their behavior. The gm should not pick at the players to death. Talk to the players.

[JNAProductions]

If someone has a problem with goodberry, they should change the spell for the game. The worse way to try to balance something is by being annoying and annoying the players to try to change their behavior. The gm should not pick at the players to death. Talk to the players.

This 150%. Always, every time.

[MaxWilson]

If someone has a problem with goodberry, they should change the spell for the game. The worse way to try to balance something is by being annoying and annoying the players to try to change their behavior. The gm should not pick at the players to death. Talk to the players.

Isn't that exactly what everybody in this thread has done? The arguments are all over hypothetical scenarios ("what if instead of changing the spell, you just...?"), not actual play.

[Keravath]

No I don't nerf it.

In my CoS campaign, one of the characters was a 1 life cleric / X moon druid. They made liberal use of upcasting goodberry before a long rest so that they had massive levels of healing available the next day. The only difference in play was that I could expect the party to be at full hit points for every encounter. It also meant the party would often push on farther on low resources since although they might be lower on spell slots they could at least start at full hit points.

Everyone had fun and it didn't generally change things in any substantive way except that I planned encounters with the idea that the party would have full hit points.

[Elbeyon]

Isn't that exactly what everybody in this thread has done? The arguments are all over hypothetical scenarios ("what if instead of changing the spell, you just...?"), not actual play.The argument I caught was someone saying that walking around with berries would destroy them and that adventures can't carry berries. That's the fix to the spell? An adventurer can slay a troll but carrying around berries is too hard for them. What is the reason for such an idea? Is berry logistic to make the game more fun? Is berry management what the players want in a dnd game? I think the reason is to stealth nerf goodberry instead of simply changing the spell. If there is a problem with the spell, fix it. The dm shouldn't annoy the players and waste people's time.

[Luccan]

The argument I caught was someone saying that walking around with berries would destroy them and that adventures can't carry berries. That's the fix to the spell? An adventurer can slay a troll but carrying around berries is too hard for them. What is the reason for such an idea? Is berry logistic to make the game more fun? Is berry management what the players want in a dnd game? I think the reason is to stealth nerf goodberry instead of simply changing the spell. If there is a problem with the spell, fix it. The dm shouldn't annoy the players and waste people's time.

Yes. How's it go again? Paraphrasing: Don't try to fix imbalanced (subjective here) mechanics by making them annoying to use.

[Kane0]

I've also heard precious few "players ruined my campaign with this spell!" horror stories. So I want to know: Do you nerf Goodberry in your games, and if so... why?

Yeah I’ve been playing basically since 5e came out and havent really had a problem with goodberry. If I were to run a dedicated survival game I might consider the ‘uses up material component’ thing but... D&D doesnt really do survival very well, if i were to do it i wouldnt do it for more than a few sessions and thats when the caster with this spell would have some time to shine with it, same as a caster using create/destroy water.

[Waazraath]

Yes, though not due to anything you've noted in your post.

I dislike the ability to use a bunch of unused spellslots for the next day as a large amount of healing, especially when it's a first level spell. While it may be the designer's intention to let you do this, I dislike it, so I make the berries lose their potency either after 24 hours (as standard) or when the spell is cast again by the same person, meaning the maximum amount of berries you can bank is one slot's worth.

Added benefit means that the characters will only ever want to 'hold' one spellslot max, meaning they don't have to weigh up spell now vs. tomorrow's healing.

This. I posted earlier on how I disliked my Shepard Druid for being boring, having summons around all the time that were bloody powerful and better than any other stuff that druid could do. Result of having summons around all the time, and 1 hour duration spells, and never failing a concentration save, was having loads of slots left at the end of the day. I'd easiliy could have started each new adventuring day with 40-80 berries.

I like your solution.

[DwarfFighter]

First of all, the two classes who can cast Goodberry are Druids and Rangers - the two classes who excel at survival, and one of those classes is commonly reviled for being only useful in "situational circumstances"... This is one of those situations!


Are you arguing that the these classes need the Goodberry to be useful? It helps their case, but not by much.


Do you nerf Goodberry in your games, and if so... why?

If I ever ran a game that was supposed to be about resource management on the level of tracking ammunition and provisions, I would be wary of the Goodberry. I would also be wary of the Create Food And Water spell. Then again, if the adventure is taking place in a desolate region like the arctic, desert or even in "alien" locations like the elemental planes, those spells make the game playable.

So... I dunno.

Realistically though: Who in their right mind is going to eat magical berries for the rest of their life, one per day? PCs, of course. But they are insane!

Also, can you even eat more than one per day over any length of time without putting on weight?

-DF

[Droppeddead]

I don't need the problem to be solved, because I already solved it. I was sharing my issue with the spell and I shared my fix at the same time. I explained what the problem is in my very first post of this thread:

Well, you made a statement but you never explained why it was an actual problem. Or do you consider every kind of player resource management a problem? Oh no, the druid is creating food and water for the starving refugees! Quick! To the nerfmobile!


I've also not said that goodberries are terribly overpowered. When questioned about the logic behind my thought process (by you, no less), I noted:


And again, why is this a problem? Does your entire campaign fall apart just because someone displays a clever use of leftover spells slots? The horror!


Respectfully, from your post:

Oh good, you finally read something. :)


What alternate reading is there other than "movement damages the goodberries" from your example?

Do I really have to explain the difference between berries and glass bottles? Again? Just because something affect one kind of objet doesn't mean that it affects everything. You do realize that?


Regardless, I'm done with this discussion - it's no longer productive.

Yeah, I kind of suspected that when you refused to answer the basic questions. Good to see you also realized that.

Cheers!

[ProsecutorGodot]

Do I really have to explain the difference between berries and glass bottles? Again? Just because something affect one kind of objet doesn't mean that it affects everything. You do realize that?


Clearly I should just carry bottles to store my goodberry in.

[Xervous]

Clearly I should just carry bottles to store my goodberry in.

But what do you get from the players for pointing out they left it there too long? w(h)ine

I’ll see myself out.

[Pex]

As long as players are not Winning D&D it's not the DM's business how they use their spells. Goodberry is not Winning D&D. If the players want to use it as their means to solve the "how do we eat" problem that's their business. It's not the DM's job to make them starve. If it's a healing resource they want to use that's their business. It's not the DM's job to kill the PCs. There are plenty of obstacles of all kinds players face, the challenge that makes the game fun to play. When they overcome particular ones of their choice that's the game working as intended.

[Kane0]

Well, you made a statement but you never explained why it was an actual problem. Or do you consider every kind of player resource management a problem? Oh no, the druid is creating food and water for the starving refugees! Quick! To the nerfmobile!

And again, why is this a problem? Does your entire campaign fall apart just because someone displays a clever use of leftover spells slots? The horror!

Oh good, you finally read something. :)

Do I really have to explain the difference between berries and glass bottles? Again? Just because something affect one kind of objet doesn't mean that it affects everything. You do realize that?

Yeah, I kind of suspected that when you refused to answer the basic questions. Good to see you also realized that.

Cheers!

You’re being needlessly antagonistic dude.

[Osuniev]

I've fixed the issue mostly by playing Gritty realism (so the spell slots matter) and making Disciple of Life provide a greater number of berries instead of imrpoving each berry.

My druid player feels awesome providing 2 days of food so the party can go at a fast pace instead of foraging (I cannot remember if it's a houserule of mine, but fast travel prevents foraging) whilst my ranger enjoys providing food most other days. And of course I banned outlander background when I told them the campaign would include survival.

[MaxWilson]

The argument I caught was someone saying that walking around with berries would destroy them and that adventures can't carry berries. That's the fix to the spell? An adventurer can slay a troll but carrying around berries is too hard for them. What is the reason for such an idea? Is berry logistic to make the game more fun? Is berry management what the players want in a dnd game? I think the reason is to stealth nerf goodberry instead of simply changing the spell. If there is a problem with the spell, fix it. The dm shouldn't annoy the players and waste people's time.

No, that was someone explaining why they used a different fix. That was Amnestic, who already explained his fix early in this thread:


Yes, though not due to anything you've noted in your post.

I dislike the ability to use a bunch of unused spellslots for the next day as a large amount of healing, especially when it's a first level spell. While it may be the designer's intention to let you do this, I dislike it, so I make the berries lose their potency either after 24 hours (as standard) or when the spell is cast again by the same person, meaning the maximum amount of berries you can bank is one slot's worth.

Added benefit means that the characters will only ever want to 'hold' one spellslot max, meaning they don't have to weigh up spell now vs. tomorrow's healing.

That whole argument was a hypothetical.